Is a benefit in kind for a residence unreasonable? A step in the right direction.

Much has been written in recent years about calculating the benefit in kind for private use of a residence provided by a company. Especially since the benefit in kind for private use of a residence was almost doubled in 2012.

1. Flat-rate determination of the benefit in kind

Since 2012, in accordance with Article 18(2)(2) of the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code (KB/WIB), the benefit has been calculated at a flat rate using the following formula:

                Index-adjusted cadastral income x 100/60 x 1.25 or 3.8. 

The coefficient of 1.25 may only be applied in the case of non-index-adjusted cadastral incomes of €745 or less; the coefficient of 3.8 must be applied in all other cases.

Before 2012 the coefficient for cadastral incomes of more than €745 was only 2, instead of 3.8.

2. Flat-rate benefit vs market rent

When this formula was introduced, the question arose of whether the obligation to calculate the benefit according to a flat rate also applied in circumstances where a market rent was paid by the manager/employee for the private use. The Minister of Finance confirmed that it did, and stated that people in such a situation would still be taxed on the difference between the flat-rate benefit and the market rent, if the flat rate was higher than the rent.

This position has come under heavy criticism in the legal literature. If the rent is set in accordance with prevailing prices in the property market, there can be no question of a benefit being acquired by the manager/employee. Moreover, Article 18 of the KB/WIB refers to the aforementioned calculation only in the case of the “provision of real property or parts of real property free of charge.” If rent is paid, and certainly if it’s market rent, we can only endorse this view, and confirm that in fact there can be no question of a benefit being acquired.

3. Is a flat-rate benefit for a residence provided by a company unconstitutional?

Another point of discussion about the benefit in kind relates to the difference between calculating the benefit for a residence provided by a company and one provided by a natural or self-employed person. The benefit of the private use of a residence provided by a natural person certainly does not consist of increasing the amount by a coefficient of 1.25 or 3.8.

This discussion was recently “resolved” by the Ghent Court of Appeal. Under the Constitution, all taxpayers who are in the same situation should be treated in the same manner, and should thus also be taxed in the same manner. Different treatment is acceptable only where it is objectively and reasonably justifiable in light of the purpose of the tax, and without going beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. The Court of Appeal held that nowhere in the legislative texts, royal decrees or preparatory documents could be found an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment. According to the Court, the tax authorities had also not succeeded in justifying the unequal treatment. As a result, the Court of Appeal decided that such a difference in taxation is unconstitutional.

4. Conclusion

What the impact of this decision will be in practice is not yet clear. In the first instance, we’re waiting for a reaction from the legislature before the decision has any chance of being successfully applied in practice. We think it more than likely that the tax authorities will ignore the decision for now and revert to the KB/WIB, meaning that the formula for calculating the benefit in kind, although disputed, will continue to be applied. The government may appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation or take legislative action to change the way the benefit is calculated. There is nothing to prevent a taxpayer from using a notice of objection to attempt to challenge the calculation of an excessively high benefit in kind, but it should be borne in mind that the debate will most likely end up being conducted in court.

We hope the government will take the necessary steps to bring the flat-rate calculation of the benefit in kind for private use of a residence back down to earth.

We’ll keep monitoring the situation and let you know when there are further developments.

The new rules for VAT processing of vouchers
The wonderful world of VAT and vouchers
Vouchers are a very popular marketing tool. There are various types of vouchers: discount vouchers issued by a manufacturer, redeemable at any sales outlet in Belgium, discount coupons issued free of charge by retailers, vouchers where you can get a newly launched article free of charge, gift vouchers that can be redeemed for a whole range of products or services, electronic vouchers, etc. Are yo
A showpiece, or rather a sticking plaster for a broken arm?
The Belgian fiscal consolidation regime
The general intention with the introduction of a fiscal consolidation regime was clear, namely to put the Belgian tax system back in a positive light. After all, many of our neighbouring countries have had a system of fiscal consolidation in place for many years, and Belgium consequently scored badly on this point when international groups were looking to choose an investment location. The ques
The long-term lease revival
Superficies as stealth usufruct?
A noteworthy judgement was recently handed down by the Court of Appeal of Brussels regarding the taxation of overly cheap accession in the case of superficies (23 January 2019). In the past, a number of rulings had already been made on this subject (see, inter alia, Court in Ghent of 31 October 2017). The tax authorities are clearly keen to see the end of the right of superficies, and the two judg
'Paulian claim' to the rescue
Thwarting the taxman by rejecting an inheritance: is it possible?
In inheritance law, multiple heirs can have a statutory inheritance claim. As such, they are entitled to a minimum share of the inheritance. Since the new inheritance law, it is possible to freely dispose of half of one's assets. This is called the available part. If the available part is exceeded by donations, the statutory heirs may request the reduction. Through the reduction, the statutory hei
Appointing a Belgian fiscal representative is necessary
BREXIT: Important VAT news for UK companies with a Belgian VAT number
The Belgian VAT authorities confirmed that UK companies with a direct Belgian VAT registration need to appoint a Belgian fiscal representative for VAT purposes before 30/03/2019. This is in case of a no-deal Brexit on that date. The VAT administration will allow these UK companies to maintain their current Belgian VAT number, also after appointing a fiscal representative for VAT purposes. 
Legally most correct solution
Successive usufruct: The Flemish Tax Office (Vlabel) confirms the method of levying the registration duties
On 10 December 2018, a remarkable position was published on the Vlabel website (Position no 18083 of 26 November 2018). The real estate tax system is becoming more and more sophisticated with more (tax) advantages. The question must therefore be asked whether the well-known "simple" usufruct will not be partially replaced by transactions with a double or successive usufruct. In the area of registr
From 1 January 2019
New Flemish Lease Decree
On 24 October 2018, the Flemish Parliament approved the new Flemish Lease Decree. In our newsletter of 26 October 2017, we already hinted at the changes that this new decree will bring about. One of the most important changes remains the decree's broad scope. On the one hand, extensive regulations are provided for the rental of a house intended as a main residence. What is new here is that the ter
Confirmed in writing to our office
Confirmed: both usufructuary and bare owner are to be included in the UBO register
The Belgian Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) register went live on 31 October 2018. On the basis of the legal texts and the explanatory notes, as ultimate beneficiary/ies of companies, the natural person(s) who directly or indirectly hold(s) a sufficient percentage of the voting rights or of the ownership interest in this company must first be notified. A holding of at least 25% is an indication of
The advantage is a taxable benefit
Fiches and withholding tax on benefits granted by foreign companies
Should payments received from a foreign company be subject to withholding tax and should this be declared on a fiche? At the moment, the answer to this question is negative in most situations, but this is set to change. A new draft law dated 18 December 2018 provides for the introduction of a tax fiction that requires the (Belgian) employer of the beneficiary employee not only to withhold withh
The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg

Subscribe to our newsletter